REBOR 1:35 X-REX Swarm & REBOR 1:35 X-rex Broodlord

[PumperKrickel]

deleted

[Over9K]

I think people need to realize that the dinosauria isn't just the extinct fauna of the Triassic, Jurassic and the Cretaceous. There is a variant of the dinosauria that is born of pop culture and still lives there, and like it or not, they're valid as dinosaurs.

Opinions on the figures themselves are fine, but to say a dinosaur figure shouldn't be covered on a dinosaur blog, simply because it has elements of another pop culture invention is disingenuous, given that the configuration of some dinosaurs we see today are themselves, pop culture inventions.

To suggest otherwise is a bit gatekeepery, IMO. YMMV.

While I generally agree with this sentiment, I also think a line should be drawn somewhere. Some iterations of Godzilla and other Kaiju are merely mutated dinosaurs. Should their figures be reviewed on the blog? Some Transformers or Power Ranger zords are basically just robotic dinosaurs. Should they be reviewed on the blog? What about humanoid dinosaurs like the Extreme Dinosaurs figures?

Compelling arguments can be made for both points of view. Perhaps this would be worthy of a dedicated discussion thread, if such a thing does not yet exist.

Definitely something for debate.

Personally, if an artist, or content creator intends a creation to be a "dinosaur", and there's a toy of it,  it's fair game for discussion on the blog, provided it is presented in the proper context concerning the origin of the "dinosaur." IMO, that's respect for the artist/creator and the art created.

We seem to have various factions here. I've seen some noses gain altitude when the discussion of new figures and toys made in outdated configurations, known to be scientifically inaccurate come up. Of course, any time a new Jurassic Park-style figure comes out from anyone but Mattel, there are those that must make sure we all know they aren't into moviesauruses, they want scientific models, dammit! I have yet to see a universally beloved dinosaur figure or toy, and what that tells me is that there's room in the hobby for everything, and everyone.

[Takama]

its creations like these that made me all against anything that does not have a official scientific name on the blog. I broght this up with the I.rex in 2015

but the Admin allowed them...and so we have a line that must be drawn somewhrer for things like these

[Syndicate Bias]

I think people need to realize that the dinosauria isn't just the extinct fauna of the Triassic, Jurassic and the Cretaceous. There is a variant of the dinosauria that is born of pop culture and still lives there, and like it or not, they're valid as dinosaurs.

Opinions on the figures themselves are fine, but to say a dinosaur figure shouldn't be covered on a dinosaur blog, simply because it has elements of another pop culture invention is disingenuous, given that the configuration of some dinosaurs we see today are themselves, pop culture inventions.

To suggest otherwise is a bit gatekeepery, IMO. YMMV.

While I generally agree with this sentiment, I also think a line should be drawn somewhere. Some iterations of Godzilla and other Kaiju are merely mutated dinosaurs. Should their figures be reviewed on the blog? Some Transformers or Power Ranger zords are basically just robotic dinosaurs. Should they be reviewed on the blog? What about humanoid dinosaurs like the Extreme Dinosaurs figures?

Compelling arguments can be made for both points of view. Perhaps this would be worthy of a dedicated discussion thread, if such a thing does not yet exist.

Definitely something for debate.

Personally, if an artist, or content creator intends a creation to be a "dinosaur", and there's a toy of it,  it's fair game for discussion on the blog, provided it is presented in the proper context concerning the origin of the "dinosaur." IMO, that's respect for the artist/creator and the art created.

We seem to have various factions here. I've seen some noses gain altitude when the discussion of new figures and toys made in outdated configurations, known to be scientifically inaccurate come up. Of course, any time a new Jurassic Park-style figure comes out from anyone but Mattel, there are those that must make sure we all know they aren't into moviesauruses, they want scientific models, dammit! I have yet to see a universally beloved dinosaur figure or toy, and what that tells me is that there's room in the hobby for everything, and everyone.

Eofauna Giganotosaurus is pretty much loved all around. Only complaint was the head which came from our second to me @KeU  when it comes to the love we share for Gigas 

[Halichoeres]

It isn't about gatekeeping. (My first impulse was that this was a really frivolous use of the term, given that gatekeeping has such profound consequences for marginalized people in the workforce, in academics, in the arts, etc.; but on reflection I think that even silly, low-stakes pursuits like dinosaur toys should be pretty egalitarian.) Rather, kaiju and monster figures, action figures, and most of the major licensed fandoms already have places on the Internet where people can discuss and review new products. To my mind, Jurassic Park is something of a special case because, while its animal designs now woefully out of date and includes all these hybrid things, it made at least a fig-leaf attempt to get things right the first time out. JP does have its own dedicated websites, but a general dinosaur toy blog would really be lacking without paying some attention to them. I don't really think Aliens licensed products, as Rebor says these are, demand representation in the same way. There are sites like https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/ for that sort of thing. But again, it isn't my decision, merely my opinion.

[stargatedalek]

They are licensed from the artists, not from Fox/Disney, so they are not considered licensed Aliens products. If these were licensed by Disney as Aliens products than I'd stay out of whether I think they should be valid for blog submission, but as REBOR makes almost entirely dinosaur products shouldn't these be grandfathered in in the exact same way the Jurassic World hybrids were?

[Over9K]

It isn't about gatekeeping. (My first impulse was that this was a really frivolous use of the term, given that gatekeeping has such profound consequences for marginalized people in the workforce, in academics, in the arts, etc.; but on reflection I think that even silly, low-stakes pursuits like dinosaur toys should be pretty egalitarian.) Rather, kaiju and monster figures, action figures, and most of the major licensed fandoms already have places on the Internet where people can discuss and review new products. To my mind, Jurassic Park is something of a special case because, while its animal designs now woefully out of date and includes all these hybrid things, it made at least a fig-leaf attempt to get things right the first time out. JP does have its own dedicated websites, but a general dinosaur toy blog would really be lacking without paying some attention to them. I don't really think Aliens licensed products, as Rebor says these are, demand representation in the same way. There are sites like https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/ for that sort of thing. But again, it isn't my decision, merely my opinion.

Sorry, feelings don't get to change the definition of a word. The word means what it means.

gate·keep·ing
/ˈɡātˌkēpiNG/

noun
noun: gatekeeping; plural noun: gatekeepings; noun: gate-keeping; plural noun: gate-keepings

    1.
    the activity of controlling, and usually limiting, general access to something.
    "Wal-Mart's cultural gatekeeping has served to narrow the mainstream for entertainment offerings"
    2.
    Computing
    a function or system that controls access or operations to files, computers, networks, or the like.
    "a gatekeeping mechanism that allows reads under some circumstances and blocks them under others"



As for what constitutes a "dinosaur toy", I think people are getting a little specific as to what this might be. The idea would be to include every possible permutation of the "dinosaur toy" in the discussion, one would think. What is the purpose of excluding pop-culture dinosaurian creatures, exactly?

[Mirroraptor]

Anyway, I think this may be REBOR's best product so far. I even have reason to believe that they hired the original artist to model the sculpture to make it close to the original design.
Today, dinosaurs are no longer simple creature, it has become a symbol of a subculture. At this level, Godzilla and Dino-Transformers are also part of the dinosaur culture, whether or not they are "essentially" dinosaurs.

[GojiraGuy1954]

Guys face it, Rebor will never be an accurate company. We have safari to be accurate, Rebor making more sci-fi creatures is a good thing.

[Halichoeres]

That seems like a needlessly aggressive response, but look, while you're schooling me on the semantic content of words, perhaps you can recognize that my post expressed agreement with the general sentiment that nobody should try to 'control, and usually limit, access' to anything. I didn't even say the word was literally inapplicable, just that my first instinct was to regard any gatekeeping that arises from my opinion as having no serious consequence. There is absolutely some behavior on the forum that serves to discourage participation by, for example, new members, or members who don't have some particular paleontological expertise. That's the kind of gatekeeping I worry about. I try really hard to be welcoming and to not be pedantic or confrontational, but I'm sure I fail sometimes.

The blog has always taken a pretty expansive view of what constitutes a dinosaur toy, and I agree that that's as it should be. There are lots of toys I think are terrible that I still think ought to be on the blog if someone submits a review. Nevertheless, the blog isn't just "The Toy Blog." Its purview is narrower, and I'm just trying to have a good faith discussion about what the criteria for inclusion in that purview should be. That's not gatekeeping in the sense of restricting what audiences see or who can participate in the community, it's merely staying in one's lane.

I think we could both agree that a toy dog wouldn't really make sense. On the other hand, a dire wolf might belong, even though it's essentially a modern animal, because people associate the species with prehistory and if a dire wolf toy is made, it's likely to be part of a prehistoric line. Conversely, a goldfinch, while technically a dinosaur, isn't really in the spirit of the blog. The regular reviewers have had debates about where to draw the temporal line, and the consensus seems to be that if something is extinct, it's fair game. That's not quite where I would have drawn the line, but it's as good a criterion as any, and I can live with it.

For pop culture dinosaurs, if the toy is obviously intended to be a member of some prehistoric species, it seems to me that its inclusion is appropriate (it's not "The Realistic Dinosaur Replica Blog"). That includes things like Dinosaur Train, Harry and His Bucketful of Dinosaurs, Go Diego Go, Dino-Riders, Ice Age, whatever. Mostly not my cup of tea, but go nuts. Where I was perhaps imprecise before is why I think JP/JW is a special case. It's not really because they were ever realistic, but they're meant to represent actual animals or combinations thereof. The named dinosaurs based on real species are obvious candidates for inclusion (yes, yes, in the story the dinosaurs have frog DNA, but that doesn't affect their appearance, it's just a plot device). Indominus and Indoraptor are constructed, and hence don't represent any real species, but given that they're part of this larger, well-defined line, and all of their putative ingredients are, after all, real dinosaurs, their inclusion is defensible (if it were 100% up to me, I might have excluded them anyway, but I don't call those shots). 

With the Rebor xenomorph-rex, I guess it just doesn't seem like it's a dinosaur anymore. I also wouldn't find a unicorn-dinosaur hybrid, a dragon-dinosaur hybrid, a hydra-dinosaur hybrid, a chupacabra-dinosaur hybrid, or whatever else, to be an appropriate inclusion, any more than I'd find a centaur appropriate for inclusion on the Animal Toy Blog. This figure is of a fantasy creature in a much more literal sense than any JP dino. Even in-universe, the xenomorphs are just parasites taking on some of the characteristics of the host, so they're not even true hybrids! It might be more comparable to a figure of a guy in a dinosaur suit than it is to an Indominus. Moreover, pertinent to stargatedalek's comment, it's not always clear what Rebor itself regards as a "line," so it's not obvious to me that this is intended as part of any particular dinosaur-themed range. I just don't think toys like this are what people visit the DTB for, just like they don't really visit it for kaiju, for example. Similarly, the old Kenner Aliens line is very unlikely to ever be reviewed on the Animal Toy Blog, despite the presence of all sorts of animal-costumed xenomorphs in the line (rhino, mantis, bull, etc.). 

Anyway, I'm not telling anyone what to buy; there's no accounting for taste. This is just my proposal for criteria on what constitutes a "dinosaur toy," criteria for which some kind of consensus will eventually emerge. In my own personal, obviously non-binding opinion, a product reviewed on the blog should be 1. a toy or other figural representation; and 2a. represent a dinosaur or other extinct organism, OR 2b. be clearly constructed from dinosaurs AND clearly part of a dinosaur line.

[Syndicate Bias]

That seems like a needlessly aggressive response, but look, while you're schooling me on the semantic content of words, perhaps you can recognize that my post expressed agreement with the general sentiment that nobody should try to 'control, and usually limit, access' to anything. I didn't even say the word was literally inapplicable, just that my first instinct was to regard any gatekeeping that arises from my opinion as having no serious consequence. There is absolutely some behavior on the forum that serves to discourage participation by, for example, new members, or members who don't have some particular paleontological expertise. That's the kind of gatekeeping I worry about. I try really hard to be welcoming and to not be pedantic or confrontational, but I'm sure I fail sometimes.

The blog has always taken a pretty expansive view of what constitutes a dinosaur toy, and I agree that that's as it should be. There are lots of toys I think are terrible that I still think ought to be on the blog if someone submits a review. Nevertheless, the blog isn't just "The Toy Blog." Its purview is narrower, and I'm just trying to have a good faith discussion about what the criteria for inclusion in that purview should be. That's not gatekeeping in the sense of restricting what audiences see or who can participate in the community, it's merely staying in one's lane.

I think we could both agree that a toy dog wouldn't really make sense. On the other hand, a dire wolf might belong, even though it's essentially a modern animal, because people associate the species with prehistory and if a dire wolf toy is made, it's likely to be part of a prehistoric line. Conversely, a goldfinch, while technically a dinosaur, isn't really in the spirit of the blog. The regular reviewers have had debates about where to draw the temporal line, and the consensus seems to be that if something is extinct, it's fair game. That's not quite where I would have drawn the line, but it's as good a criterion as any, and I can live with it.

For pop culture dinosaurs, if the toy is obviously intended to be a member of some prehistoric species, it seems to me that its inclusion is appropriate (it's not "The Realistic Dinosaur Replica Blog"). That includes things like Dinosaur Train, Harry and His Bucketful of Dinosaurs, Go Diego Go, Dino-Riders, Ice Age, whatever. Mostly not my cup of tea, but go nuts. Where I was perhaps imprecise before is why I think JP/JW is a special case. It's not really because they were ever realistic, but they're meant to represent actual animals or combinations thereof. The named dinosaurs based on real species are obvious candidates for inclusion (yes, yes, in the story the dinosaurs have frog DNA, but that doesn't affect their appearance, it's just a plot device). Indominus and Indoraptor are constructed, and hence don't represent any real species, but given that they're part of this larger, well-defined line, and all of their putative ingredients are, after all, real dinosaurs, their inclusion is defensible (if it were 100% up to me, I might have excluded them anyway, but I don't call those shots).

With the Rebor xenomorph-rex, I guess it just doesn't seem like it's a dinosaur anymore. I also wouldn't find a unicorn-dinosaur hybrid, a dragon-dinosaur hybrid, a hydra-dinosaur hybrid, a chupacabra-dinosaur hybrid, or whatever else, to be an appropriate inclusion, any more than I'd find a centaur appropriate for inclusion on the Animal Toy Blog. This figure is of a fantasy creature in a much more literal sense than any JP dino. Even in-universe, the xenomorphs are just parasites taking on some of the characteristics of the host, so they're not even true hybrids! It might be more comparable to a figure of a guy in a dinosaur suit than it is to an Indominus. Moreover, pertinent to stargatedalek's comment, it's not always clear what Rebor itself regards as a "line," so it's not obvious to me that this is intended as part of any particular dinosaur-themed range. I just don't think toys like this are what people visit the DTB for, just like they don't really visit it for kaiju, for example. Similarly, the old Kenner Aliens line is very unlikely to ever be reviewed on the Animal Toy Blog, despite the presence of all sorts of animal-costumed xenomorphs in the line (rhino, mantis, bull, etc.).

Anyway, I'm not telling anyone what to buy; there's no accounting for taste. This is just my proposal for criteria on what constitutes a "dinosaur toy," criteria for which some kind of consensus will eventually emerge. In my own personal, obviously non-binding opinion, a product reviewed on the blog should be 1. a toy or other figural representation; and 2a. represent a dinosaur or other extinct organism, OR 2b. be clearly constructed from dinosaurs AND clearly part of a dinosaur line.

I think we should cut him some slack he is on the younger side so it's understandable that he's yet to fully grasp much of what he's posting. I know I did when I was a teenager. Let's just all agree that we love dinosaurs and other forms of them whether innacurate or crossed over with science fiction. 

[tanystropheus]

Guys face it, Rebor will never be an accurate company. We have safari to be accurate, Rebor making more sci-fi creatures is a good thing.

That's a rather premature assessment. REBOR has proven that they can make fantasy models (e.g Vanilla Ice) and incredibly accurate models. Have you seen their Komodo Dragon model? There is nothing like it in the market in terms of realism. Nothing even close. They've also indirectly, albeit, unintentionally, inspired PNSO to some degree, based on a recent revelation. It isn't particularly difficult for REBOR to own the scientific, accurate market either. It's just a matter of whether it aligns with their organizational or marketing strategy, which will continue to evolve and expand with time.

[Over9K]

Interesting to me that pointing out the definition of a word, without emotion or political emphasis placed on it, is what it is, should be considered "aggressive", or immature.

It's important to be factual, in a debate.

Making considerations as to what constitutes a "dinosaur toy" in the art of dinosaur toy making, for the discussion of dinosaur toys, is subjective, and not really worth getting one's feelings hurt over.

Perhaps a couple people take themselves, this place, and dinosaur toys a bit too seriously. 

[postsaurischian]

Anyway, I think this may be REBOR's best product so far. I even have reason to believe that they hired the original artist to model the sculpture to make it close to the original design.

  I don't think so. H.R. Giger died 5 years ago.

[ITdactyl]

Personally, I see a Xenomorph with dinosaur traits - although I won't really mind seeing it reviewed in the blog.  I just hope the reviewer focuses on its merits as a figure/toy rather than on how it's not a real dinosaur.

[Mirroraptor]

Anyway, I think this may be REBOR's best product so far. I even have reason to believe that they hired the original artist to model the sculpture to make it close to the original design.

  I don't think so. H.R. Giger died 5 years ago.

I mean the artist who design the Tyrannosaur-Xenomorph, as you see, Stjepan Šejić - I'm not sure if REBOR really hired him, but in terms of the quality of the product, this product does have a has been greatly improved.
If it was designed by H.R.Giger, I have no doubt that it will be better than this thing - there is no meaning to devalue Mr. Šejić or REBOR's sculptor.

[Shadowknight1]

Anyway, I think this may be REBOR's best product so far. I even have reason to believe that they hired the original artist to model the sculpture to make it close to the original design.

  I don't think so. H.R. Giger died 5 years ago.

I mean the artist who design the Tyrannosaur-Xenomorph, as you see, Stjepan Šejić - I'm not sure if REBOR really hired him, but in terms of the quality of the product, this product does have a high degree of reduction.
If it was designed by H.R.Giger, I have no doubt that it will be better than this thing - there is no meaning to devalue Mr. Šejić or REBOR's sculptor.

Either you didn't mean what you said, or you changed your mind.  You can't really say that something is REBOR's best product to date and then say that the quality of the product has a high degree of reduction.

[Mirroraptor]

Anyway, I think this may be REBOR's best product so far. I even have reason to believe that they hired the original artist to model the sculpture to make it close to the original design.

  I don't think so. H.R. Giger died 5 years ago.

I mean the artist who design the Tyrannosaur-Xenomorph, as you see, Stjepan Šejić - I'm not sure if REBOR really hired him, but in terms of the quality of the product, this product does have a high degree of reduction.
If it was designed by H.R.Giger, I have no doubt that it will be better than this thing - there is no meaning to devalue Mr. Šejić or REBOR's sculptor.

Either you didn't mean what you said, or you changed your mind.  You can't really say that something is REBOR's best product to date and then say that the quality of the product has a high degree of reduction.

Sorry, my English is not good, so I have to use the translator for a long time(This is also why I often edit my post after posting). It may have translated the original text incorrectly, and I did not check it carefully. It has now been corrected.

[Shadowknight1]

Anyway, I think this may be REBOR's best product so far. I even have reason to believe that they hired the original artist to model the sculpture to make it close to the original design.

  I don't think so. H.R. Giger died 5 years ago.

I mean the artist who design the Tyrannosaur-Xenomorph, as you see, Stjepan Šejić - I'm not sure if REBOR really hired him, but in terms of the quality of the product, this product does have a high degree of reduction.
If it was designed by H.R.Giger, I have no doubt that it will be better than this thing - there is no meaning to devalue Mr. Šejić or REBOR's sculptor.

Either you didn't mean what you said, or you changed your mind.  You can't really say that something is REBOR's best product to date and then say that the quality of the product has a high degree of reduction.

Sorry, my English is not good, so I have to use the translator for a long time(This is also why I often edit my post after posting). It may have translated the original text incorrectly, and I did not check it carefully. It has now been corrected.

Ah, that makes more sense.  Hey, English is my primary language and even I don't always get it right.

[Lu_Yuping]

Rebor have announced that the second variant - Swarm X-Rex Plague variant will be available around July. It has a removable dome to show the skull detail beneath.

https://www.facebook.com/reborstudio/posts/2817348941725429